Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byrdie Green (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 16:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Byrdie Green
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable notability, not enough sources exist for an article of substance, not sure she is a jazz singer (more blues or soul) Vmavanti (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. A couple of NY Times articles (and having appeared as a soloist at Carnegie Hall in the first place) make a good first step to notability, but there just doesn't seem to be much else. Sneftel (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One of those articles is about seven sentences, a very brief review of her performance. The other is about the same, too brief to be of much use. Vmavanti (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DeleteWhile her albums are verifiable and her credits/history meets notability, I can't find notable sources to verify any more of her history. Actaudio (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing on this article which was added yesterday may look adequate, but it isn't. Click on the links under "sources". A citation link is supposed to lead directly to the source of the information. These links don't.
 * I disagree. For sources in archive.org, that is just how it works - documents open in the middle, and you use the search function (just above the document, on the right) to search for the word(s). For Google Books sources, a link with the search expression could be used, but if not, the search window in the result brings up the relevant page. Offline and paywalled sources are acceptable per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and these are much more easily accessible than that (they WP:NEXIST). Anyone can easily find them (and could easily have found them in a WP:BEFORE search). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not supposed to link to a search. Readers should not have to do a search after being led to a page by a citation. The citation must lead directly to the information. From what you've said, you've been doing your citations wrong. You can find URLs in both Google Books and archive.org that lead directly to the information. Doing a search isn't necessary.
 * 1. These are not my citations - I was explaining why the citations in the article before I added any lead to a search within the source. 2. Why not replace the urls in the citations with the urls that lead directly to the cited information? Editors are not general readers - WP:BEFORE requires editors to perform searches, and encourages us to then cite the sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with improving citations. I do it almost every day. I was defending my comment, which you criticized, that the citations had not been done properly. I didn't say you added them. I simply said they were inadequate. I always search before I propose deletion. I continue to be puzzled by the crusader mentality regarding "rescuing" articles and "saving" them from deletion (Oh no!) as though one were saving a drowning child. I don't care either way. As long as the information is sourced.
 * Second point. This, too, is a courtesy to the reader: Avoid sources that require payment. I'm baffled by your suggestion that paid sources are "easily accessible". Easy for you maybe, but not everyone can afford to pay for every web site they come across. Let's put readers first.
 * 1. It may be your preference to avoid sources that require payment, but it is not Wikipedia policy. 2. I did not say that paid sources are easily accessible, I said that these sources, the sources in the article which require a search within the source, are more easily accessible than paid sources.RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about common sense.

Vmavanti (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep She released 3 albums on Prestige Records, and therefore meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". (The previous editor also says that she meets notability, so it's not at all clear why they voted delete.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * She didn't release three albums. Prestige released three albums. Sounds like nitpicking, but it isn't.
 * It is the exact wording that WP:MUSICBIO #5 uses, and is irrelevant to the fact that she meets that notability guideline. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be unrelated to notability, but it has a lot to do with common sense and clear, logical prose.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Apart from meeting WP:MUSICBIO #5, there are also many reviews of her recordings and performances in newspapers of the time, so she also meets #1. I have already added 4 to the article, and there are more to add. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Four albums on Prestige if we include the one she recorded with Johnny "Hammond" Smith. Satisfies WP:NMUSIC. Coverage found includes a couple of brief reviews from Billboard (, . More coverage from the 1960s is likely to exist in print sources. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies MUSICBIO. Also sources can be behind paywalls, and sometimes there are no urls available for search results. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - changing my vote because this had a LOT of info added since it was first nominated. Actaudio (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.